Bishwajeet Mandal Alias Vishwajit Mandal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the materials on record. While the specific arguments regarding GST payment and the genuineness of the E-challan were presented by the petitioner, the Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail appears to be based on a holistic consideration of these factors, coupled with the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and his lack of criminal antecedents. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender in court within four weeks and, upon arrest or surrender, to be enlarged on bail with specific conditions, including furnishing bail bonds, cooperating with the investigation, appearing before the investigating officer when noticed, providing his mobile number and Aadhar card photocopy, and undertaking not to change his mobile number. These conditions are subject to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts

The petitioner, Bishwajeet Mandal alias Vishwajit Mandal, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 153 of 2022. The case was instituted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and the Water and Air Pollution Acts. The FIR alleged that six vehicles were found transporting minerals without valid E-Challans during an inspection. The petitioner, a director of M/s Purvi Aggregate Solution Pvt. Ltd., claimed innocence, stated the company was registered and paid GST, and that the E-challan issued by the company was genuine. He also stated he had no criminal antecedents and that co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail. He undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of transporting minerals without valid E-Challans and the relevant penal and statutory provisions. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and that the E-challan issued by his company, M/s Purvi Aggregate Solution Pvt. Ltd., is genuine and legal. He emphasized that the company pays GST and he has no criminal antecedents. He also pointed out that co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail. He assured cooperation with the investigation and adherence to court conditions. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.